weidman, carla sue; weidman, john c. the woman professor
Post on 22-Apr-2022
12 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-ED 104 893
DOCUMENT RESUME
95 SP 009 140
AUTHOR Weidman, Carla Sue; Weidman, John C.TITLE The Woman Professor of Education: Social and
Occupational Characteristics.PUB DATE 1 Apr 75NOTE 24p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association(Washington, D.C., April 1, 1975)
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-:1.38 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Acddemic Rank (Professional); Colleges; Comparative
Analysis; Higher Education; Professional Personnel;*Salary Differentials; *Sex Discrimination; Tables(Data); Universities; *Women` Professors
ABSTRACTThis study was carried out because little of the
recent research on sex discrimination has dealt with education as aspecial field. A comparison t.f social and career characteristics ofmale and female professors of education was carried out to examinewhether a basis existed for discrimination by sex. Data for the studywere obtained from the National Survey of Higher Education conductedby the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Higher Education and theAmerican Council on Education. Findings pointed to the following: a)discrimination against women in the areas of rank and salary Seemsmore pervasive in universities than in four-year colleges; b) womeneducation professors earn less than their male counterparts at allranks in both universities and four-year colleges; c) when highestdegree is held constant, men in both universities and four-year
- colleges are more likely to hold the rank of professor than arewomen; and d) men generally receive a higher salary than women incases where salary was examined as a reward for productivity. Thisstudy confirmed that rank and salary differentials favored men evenwhen highest degree and productivity were controlled, (Tables of dataare included.) (PB)
*A.
The Woman Professor of Education:
Social and Occupational Characteristics
by
Carla Sue Weidman
University of Minnesota
and
John C. Weidman
University of Minnesota
U.S OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EOUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPROOUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association
Washington, D.C., April 1, 1975
The Woman Professor of Education:Social and Occupational Characteristics*
The field of education has traditionally had a large number of female majors,
both in graduate and undergraduate programs. According to Morlock (1973), statis-
tics for 1969-70 show that women earned 75% of bachelor's degrees in education but
only 55% of the masters and 23% of the doctorates. The-percentage of doctorates
earned by women has remained constant at 20% for the years 1928-1970. Neverthe-
less, while the proportion of women earning doctorates in education is small, it
is the academic field in which the largest number of doctorates are conferred on
women (Astin, 1973).
Aside from the discrepancy between the number of undergraduate majors and
doctorates in education, recent research has indicated sex discrimination in the
areas of rank and salary (Astin, 1969, 1972, 1973; Astin and Bayer, 1972; Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education, 1973; Morlock, 1973; Patterson, 1973; Graham, 1973;
Centra, 1974; LaSorte, 1971). Unfortunately, much of the research has not dealt
with education as a special field. Centra (1974) included a small sample of education
doctorates'in his survey, but much of his data does not include specific contrasts
between male and female faculty. A systematic comparison of social and career
characteristics of both men and women professors of education seems necessary in
order to examine whether any basis exists for discrimination by sex. In addition,
we will present data on professors of education, a grop heretofore relatively
underrepresented in research on the academic professions.
A review of related literature suggests the following expectations for this
research. First, women professors of education are expected to have somewhat dif-
ferent background an' family characteristics than men. Women are expected to have
higher socioeconomic origins than their male counterparts, perhaps because these
This article is based in part on data gathered by the National Survey of HigherEducation, sponsorec: by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and supportedin part as a cooperative research project by funds from, the United States Office
of Education. Detailed information on these surveys can be found in Martin
Trow, et al (1972). Support for the data analysis was provided by the University
of Minnesota Computation Center.1-Z04.
- 2 --
women consistently received pressures for achievement as well as financial support
from their families (Astin, 1972; Astin, 1973; Pritchard, et al, 1971). Women
professors generally are also less likely to be married than their male counter--
parts (Bayer, 1970:12). Second, in examining the training of men and women, one
would expect that there would be a longer period between obtaining a bachelor's
degree and a doctorate for women than for men (Centra, 1974; Bayer, 1970:13).
This may reflect the effects of sex discrimination in graduate school admissions,
. especially at the doctoral level, as well as the trend for women to resume their
graduate training after a break for child-rearing. Third, career patterns for
men and women are expected" to show different trends, with women tending to have
lower ranks and salaries, even when highest degree obtained and productivity are
held constant (Astin, 1969; Astin, 1972; Graham, 1973). Fourth, women tend to be
generally less productive in scholarly publications than men. Two factors may
explain this discrepancy: women are less likely to receive the institutional re-
wards of rank and salary for productivity; and, for married women, family demands
at critical career points may lower their productivity. In fact, while marital status
may be positively related to academic success for men, it often creates the negative
factors of role conflict and extra professional demands for women (Husbands, 1972;
Feldman, 1973; Bernard, 1964; Epstein, 1970; Centre, 1974, Astin, 1969). Norlock
(1973) has documented that the productivity of single women in political science
is like that of men while married women's productivity is lower. Astin (1969)
has suggested an additional factor which influences productivity for women doc-
torates. She found that the most productive women tended to come from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds, often with working parents who both had uns'Acilled or semi-
skilled occupations. These factors seem to indicate that differential productivity
for men and women may be a function of environmental and background factors rather
than a disinterest on the part of women for engaging in scholarly research.
3
Study Desi?:n
Data for the staidy are from the 1:3tional Survey of Higher Education conducted by
the Carnegie Commiss'.rn on the Future cr. Higher Education in cooperation with the
American Council on Education (Trow, et al, 1972). Bayer (1970: 3-4) describes
the sample design for this study as follows:
In March of 1969 the survey questionnaire was mailed to a sample of
regular faculty at 303 U.S. colleges and universities, primarily those in-
stitutions which participated in the 1966 Cooperative Institutional Research
Program of the American Council on Education (Astiu, Panos, and Creager, 1967).
A disproportionate random sampling desigi was used in selecting these insti-
tutions in order to obtain adequate numbers of institutions of various types
and characteristics (Creager, 1968). The 303 institutions...include 57 junior
colleges, 168 four year colleges and 78 universities. They range in size from
a faculty of fewer than 20 to a faculty of more than 4000.
The 303 institutional representatives for the ACE cooperative Insti-
tutional Research Program were sent letters...which requested that they provide
rosters showing the names and addresses of all regular teaching faculty at
their institutions. A six in seven random sample of faculty was selected from
these rosters for the survey; included were 100,315 regular faculty--from both
academic departments and professional schools--who were responsible for the
teaching of any degree-credit course during the ].968 -1969 academic year...
Usable returns were finally received from 60,028 respondents (59.8 per cent).
Systematic investigations of non-response bias (Trow, et al.,1972: 49-60) in-
dicated that the sample achieved was very close to the criterion sample based on
actual distributions of faculty among various types of institutions that was de-
veloped prior to the data collection. The only discrepancies discovered between
the achieved and criterion samples were small overrepresentations of Ph.D. holders
and individuals interested in research or research and teaching.
,
4
In order to estimate national norms for education faculty, the data were
weighted. A detailed discussion of the weighting procedure can be found in
Trove, et. al. (1972: 29-39). Bayer (1970: 4) describes the weighting proce-
dure as follows:
Three sets of weights were developed. The first is a between-.
college weight which adjusts the data for the disproportionate
sampling of institutions from the population. The second is within-
college weight wIlich adjusts for the six in seven sampling of faculty
and for the differential response rates of faculty (by degree level)
at the various institutions. The third, the subject weight, is the
product of the first two and was applied in the subsequent processing
of subject data records on file.
Faculty whose "present principal teaching field" was one of the following
subfields (response categories as they appeared on the questionnaire) of
education are included in the present research: education, elementary and/or
secondary, foundations, educational psychology and counseling, educationalF-40.0 ; h LIC6,110 aA ads al-t. 1,of
administration, and "other" education fields.AThe raw n for the sample used
in the present research was 3049; the weighted n was 23,806. 26.6 percent of
the weighted sample were women. A comparison of the Carnegie-ACE weighted
data with another study of education professors based on U.S. Office of
Education statistics (Counelis, 1969) indicated similar distributions of
education faculty in universities (Counelis, 41.2%; Carnegie-ACE, 45.1%) and
in four-year colleges (Counelis, 58.8%; Carnegie-ACE, 54.9%). In the
weighted sample for the present research, 53.1 per ceat of the men and 60.6
per cent of the women teach more than six hours of classes each week. All
tables in the following data analysis are based on weighted data, i.e., each
individual's responses are weighted by his or her sLbject weight. Because
the data are weighted, no tests of statistical significance are used.
FINDINGS
Contrary to expectations, the women professors of education du not come
from proportionately higher socioeconomic backgrounds than men (Table 1).
Women were only slightly more likely to come from professional backgrounds
(17.4%) than men (12.3%). Generally, it appears that professors of education,
both men and women, tend to have origins in the middle class.
Marital status, on the other hand, did differ between the two sexes (Table
2). A substantially larger proportion of the women professors of education_
remained single (39%) than did the men (7.1%). This may indicate an_ awareness
on the part of the women of the difficulties of combining family obligations
and career demands, a factor which is more salient for women than for men.
As shown in Table 3, women were more likely to take a longer time in
obtaining a Ph.D. than men. The difference in length of time was not so
striking for prolessors whose highest degree was a doctorate other than the
Ph.D., or a master's degree. In addition, there is a discrepancy between the
proportion of women who have Ph.D.'s (18.5%) and the proportion of men who
have Ph.D.'s (31.0%). Women are much more likely to have only a master's
degree than are men. This may reflect differential career aspirations by
sex.
The findings about rank and salaries of women professors tend to s'pport
the contention that there is sex discrimination. Because of differential hir-
ing practices, it seemed important to treat universities and four-year colleges
separately in the following analysis. In the present sample, women are much
more likely to be employed in colleges (69.6%) than in universities (31.4%),
white men are equally likely to be employed in colleges (50.7%) and universities
(49.3%).
7
Discrimination against women in the areas of rank and salary appears to
be more pervasive in the universities than in ti:e four-year colleges, a find-
ing which suggests that women hired by universitic. arc less likely to receive
the institutional rewards than tleir counterparts in r:olleges. The discrepancy
between the status of women in colleges and universities is not as great for
type of appointment as for the other inscitutioJal variables. Nevertheless,
as Table 4 indicates, women in universities are slightly less likely to have
a regular appointment with tenure than women in colleges. Women professors of
education are almost twice as likely to have non-tenure track positions (Acting,
Visiting) as are men, in both colleges and universities.
When the highest degree is held constant, men in both universities and col-
leges are more likely to hold the rank of professor than are women ;Tables 5
and 6). However, this sex differential is much more pronounced for universi-
ties than it is for colleges. Women professors of education in colleges who
hold a doctorate other than the Ph.D. are slightly more likely to hold the rank
of professor than men in this degree category. These women holding doctorates
other than the Ph.D. do, in fact, have the rank of professor more frequently
than women Ph.D.'s who are also teaching in colleges. Generally, in colleges,
both men and women professors of education are more likely to have a higher
rank, holding degree constant, than their counterparts in universities.
An analysis of sex' differences in salary among men and women professors
of education showed clear and consistent differentials favoring men. As shown
by the salary distributions by rank in Table 7, women education professors in
universities earn less than their male counterparts at all ranks. The same is
true for women education professors in four-year colleges. This is shown in
Table 8.
- 7 -
.Table 9 shows the relationship between salary and highest. degree earned
for both men and professors of education in uuiversities. As was the case with
respect to rank, men tend to get higher salaries than women, independent of
highest degree earned. Similar results are shown in Table 10 for women educa-
tion professors in four-year colleges.
We were also concerned with the relationship between scholarly productiv-
ity and institutional rewards in terms of salaries. Since the journal article
is the most prevalent mode of scholarly writing, we chose to use number of
published journal articles as our measure of productivity. Table 11 shows,
again, a clear pattern of salary differentials favoring men over women in
universities across productivity categories, with the most striking differen-
tial by sex among those with eleven or more published journal articles.
Similar findings appear in Table 12 for education professors in four-year
colleges, except for one notable reversal. Women professors of education in
four-year colleges who have published eleven or more articles actually earn
more than their male counterparts. This one ray of optimism dims, however,
due to the very low case base for this productivity category (the weighted n
of 81 is probably based on a raw n of 10-20).
One other set of relationships, those between highest degree and scholarly
productivity for men and women professors of education, are shown in Tables
13 and 14. Among those education faculty members with doctorates in univer-
sities, the productivity of man was much greater than that for women.. The
differential in productivity by sex was much smaller for college faculty. In
both types of institutions, however, there was a greater sex differential in
productivity among those faculty members with Ed.D.'s and other doctorates
than their was among the Ph.D.'s.
Finally, we examined for doctorate holders the relationships between
scholarly productivity and marital status, and between scholarly productivity
8
and father's occui'ition, controlling in both cases for sex. Married women
with the Ph.D. tend to be more productive than single women with the Ph.D.,
contrary to the expectations (Table 15). There is no productivity differential
by marital status among men with the Ph.D. Among those holding the Ed.D. or
another doctorate, married mtan are more productive than single men. This is
_shown in Table 16. Conversely, single women holding the Ed.D. or another
doctorate are more productive than their married counterparts. This finding
confirms expectations.
Also confirming expectations is the finding reported in Table 17 that
women with the Ph.D. from working class backgrounds are more productive than
women with the Ph.D. from white collar and professional families. For men
with the Ph.D., on the other hand, those from professional families tend to
be the most productive.
Among women professors of education with the Ed.D. or another doctorate,
those from working class families tend to be less productive than others from
professional and white collar families. This is shown in Table 18. Among
man with the Ed.D. or another doctorate, there is virtdally no productivity,
differential by family background.
DISCUSSION
The striking finding in this study was a confirmation of rank and salary
differentials favoring men, even when highest degree and productivity were
controlled. This differential is consistent for both four year colleges and-1-0 Ake.-
universities. It is importantAthat the data used in this study was collected
in 1969, shortly before the advent of affirmative action programs. Neverthe-
less, Centre's (1974) data for recent doctorates which was collected in 1973
shows similar patterns of salary and rank differentials by sex, thereby raising
the clo,...stion of whether tha st,..:: differences have lessened between 1969 and the
present. These findings of differential treatment of men and women are
especially dicouraging in :in acadeLic area scc:, as education which has tradi-
tionally attracted large numbers of women.
- 10 -
References
Astin, A. W., R. J. Pi-o5, and J. A. Creager, "National Norms for Entering
College FreshmenFall, 1966," ACE Research Reoorts, Vol. 2, No. 1.
Washington: American Council on Education, 1967.
Astin, H. S. Career profiles of women doctorates. In A. Rossi (Ed.) AcademicWomen on the Move. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973, 139-62.
Astin, H. S. Employment and career status of women psychologists. American
Psychologist, 1972, 27, 371-81.
Astin, H. S. The Woman Doctorate in America. New York: Russell Sage Founda-
tion, 1969.
Astin, H. S. & A. E. Bayer. Sex discrimination in academe. Educational. Record. 1972, 53, 101-18.
Bayer, A. E. "College and University Faculty: A Statistical Description,"
ACE Research Reoorts, Vol. 5, No. 5. Washington, D. C.: American Council
on Education, 1970.
Bernard, J. Academic Women. University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1964.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. ORportunities for Women in Higher
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973.
Centra, J. Women, Men and the Doctorate. Princeton: Educational Testing
Service, 1974.
Counelis, J. S. "The Professoriate in the Discipline of Education." In J.
S. Counelis (Ed.), To Be a Phoenix: The Education Professor:'ate.
Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1969, 1-29.
Creager, J. A. General purpose sampling in the domain of higher education:
a characteristics file for research. ACE Research Reports, Vol. 3, No.
2. Washington: American Council on Education, 1969.
Epstein, C. F. Worsens' Pia:e. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.
Feldman, S. Graduate study and marital status. American Journal of Sociology.1973, 78, 9s,2.-914.
Grahaa, P. A. Status transitions of women students, faculty, and administra-
tors. In A. Rossi (Ed.) Academic Women on the Move. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation, 1973, 163-172.
Husbands, S. A. Woman's place in higher education. School. Review. 1972, 80,No. 2, 261-74.
LaSorte, M. Sex differences in salary among academic sociology teachers. The
American Sociologist. 1971, 6, No. 4, 304-07.
Morlock, L. Discipline variation in the status of academic women. In A.
Rossi (Ed.) Academic Woman on the Move. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1973, 255-312.
Patterson, M. Sex specialization in academe and the professions. In A.
Rossi (Ed.) Academic Women on the Move. New York: Russell Sage Founda-
tion, 1973, 313-32.
Pritchard, K., Sing-Nan Fen, and T. Buxton. Social class origins of college
teachers of education. Journal of Teacher Education. 1971, 22, No. 2,
219-28.
_Mow, M. A., et. al. Technical Report: Carnegie Commission National Survey
of Higher Education. Berkeley, California: Carnegie Commission on Higher
Education, 1972.
C
Father'sOccupation
Table 1
Father's Occupation of Education Professors by Sex (Per Cent)
Professionala
White Collarb
12.3
54.2
Semi- and
Unskilled Labor 33.5
Weighted N 17,469
28.6
6,258
aIncludes: College-University Teacher, Researcher, and Administrator;
Other professional;. Owner large business.
bIncludes: Elementary & Secondary School Teacher or Administrator;
Managerial, Administrative, Semi7professional; Owner,small business; Farmer owner or manager; Other white collar,Clerical, Retail Sales; Armed Forces.
Table 2
Marital Status of Education Professors by Sex (Per Cent)
Sex
Men Women
Married 89.8 46.1
Single 3.0 14.8Marital (formerly married)Status
Single
Weighted N
7.1
17,456
39.1
6,292
Table 3
Highest Decree of Education Professofs by Sex and Amount ofTime Between B.A. and Highest Degree (Per. Cent)
Highest Degree
Ph.D
Men Women
OtherDoctorate
Men Women
MAMED
Men Women
Other
Men Women
Other .3 0 2.4 4.6 60.8 29.8 81.9 100.0
4jzs-rs 1-4 6.0 4.3 5.4 7.6 13.2 31.8 4.7 0Amoust-ef-iL4Q-Between 5-10 46.S 31.3 33.4 31.7 19.9 24.9 11.9 0B.A. and
Highest Degree 11+ 46.9 64.4 58.8 56.1 6.1 13.4 1.5 0
Weighted N 5192 1163 7068 1271 4299 3440 278 229
Table 4
Type of Appointment of Education Professorsby Type of Institution and Sex (Per Cent)
Faun' -YecorUniversity College
Men Women Men Women
Reg/Tenure 49.7 38.4 49.4 44.1
Reg/withoutType of Tenure 46.4 54.5 45.9 47.6
Appointments
Visiting, Acting 3.9 7.2 4.7 8.3
Weighted N 8561 1979 8812 4329
Table 5
Rank of Education Professors in Universitiesby Highest Degree an Sex (Per Cent)
Highest Degree
Ph.D
Men Woman
Other
Doctorate
Mni Women
MAMED
Men Women
Other
Men Women
Professor 37.8 26.2 . 31.4 28.6 5.4 2.9 7.7 0
Associate -_-Professor 26.9 30.3 29.2 29.2 6.2 10.3 6.9 0
Rank AssistantProfessor 31.9 37.5 32.8 31.8 28.2 25.2 25.1 26.7
Other 3.5 6.0 6.5 10.6 59.6 61.6 -60.3 73.3
Weighted N 3618 564 3382 486 1345 832 119 53
Table 6
6u-warRank of Education Professors inn Colleges by
Highest Degree and Sex (Per Cent)
Highest Degree
Ph.D
Men Women
OtherDoctorate
Men Women
MANED
Men Woman
Other
Men Women
Professor 54.6 34.9 42.4 47.4 5.1 .1 11.5 0
AssociateProfessor 25.3 35.6 39.5 20.9 28.1 12.2 18.3 0
Rank AssistantProfessor 16.3 25.9 16.6 26.3 34.8 44.9 34.9 25.9
Other 3.8 3.6 1.5 5.4 32.0 42.8 35.3 74.4
Weighted N 1598 599 3626 784 2965 2639 196 176
Alp,
Table 7
Salary of Education Professors in Universities byRani and Sex (Per Cent)
Rank
Professor Associate Assistant Other
Men Wbmen Men Women Men Women Men Women
9,999 orless .4 3.5 2.1 11.6 12.7 46.6 55.0 90.5
10,000-11,999 1.6 14.9 18.9 27.8 58.9 45.5 21.6 6.8
12,0000-
13,999 11.8 29.7 45.3 42.1 25.5 7.9 11.5 2.3Nine-monthSalary 14,000-
16,999 41.0 44.3 28.6 17.3 2.4 0 6.7 .4
17,000-19,999 30.3 7.5 5.2 1.2 .5 0 2.7 0
20,000 14.8 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0
Weighted N 2538 320 2057 407 2700 596 1232 654
Table 8
Salary of Education Professors in Four-year Collegesby Rank and Sex (Per Cent)
Rank
Professor Associate Assistant Other
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
9,999 10.2 41.1 9.1 41.3 37.6 72.5 79.0 87.4
10,000-11,999 10.3 5.4 38.0 38.7 49.6 16.4 11.3 7.0
12,000-13,999 25.2 18.4 38.0 10.2 7.8 7.1 6.5 5.6Nine-month
Salary 14,000-16,999 28.5 27.4 12.5 8.0 4.9 4.0 3.3 0
17,000-19,999 22.1 4.6 1.9 1.8 0 0 0 0
20,000 3.6 3.1 .6 0 0 0 0 0
Weighted N 2587 608 2893 688 1927 _1573 1-306 1373
9,999or less
10,000-11,999
Nine-month 12,000-13,999
Salary
14,000-16,999
17,000-19,999
20,000
Weighted N
Table 9
Salary of EducationProfessors in Universitiesby Highest Degree and Sex (Per Cent)
Highest Degree
Other MAPh.D. Doctorate MED OtherMen Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
4.1 16.9 6.0 28.3 48.3 76.1 43.4 82.2
26.6 31.1 25.2 28.5 32.4 17.4 14.8 0
25.9 32.3 27.4 20.3 12.3 3.5 24.8 17.8
23.1 18.0 25.7 22.1 3.7 1.1 13.3 0
15.0 1.8 10.4 .7 2.1 1.8 0 05.4 0 5.4 0 1.2 0 3.7 0
3613 554 3362 478 1337 333 114 53
Table 10
Salary of EducationProfessors in Four-year Collegesby Highest Degree and Sex (Per Cent)
Highest Degree
Other MAPh.D Doctorate MED OtherMen Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
9,999or less 11.5 34.3 8.7 47.7 51.1 81.9 42.7 58.910.000-11,999 17.4 22.6 30.4 17.7 31.5 13.7 35.4 22.212,000-13,999 31.7 12.4 27.5 14.3 15.1 4.1 7.2 .18.9
Nine-monthSalary 14,000-
16,999 20.3 23.6 22.0 18.6 1.8 .3 14.7 017,000-19,999 15.3 5.0 10.3 1.6 0 0 0 020,000+ 3.8 2.2 1.0 .8 .4 0 0 0Weighted N 1598 566 3666 768 2948 2600 196 176
Table 11
Salary of EducationProcessors in Universities byNumber of Journal
Articles Published and Sex (Per Cent)
Number of Journal Articles
None 1-4 5-10 11+Men WOmen Men Women Men Women Men Women
9,999or less 33.1 74.2 13.1 42.4 3.4 9.5 2.1 6.010,000-11,999 36.2 19.3 34.9 35.5 25.7 15.5 9.6 13.612,000-13,999 19.7 3.3 27.1 15.7 33.0 49.2 18.5 34.9Nine-month
Salary 14,000-16,999 8.6 2.5 18.3 5.3 24.3 24.1 31.5 42.117,000-19,999 1.6 .7 5.3 1.1 12.7 1.7 23.2 3.320,000+ .8 0 1.3 0 1.0 0 15.1 0Weighted N 1654 798 3011 686 1458 228 2220 228
Table 12
Salary of Education Professors in Four-Year Colleges byNumber of Journal Articles Published and Sex (Par Cent)
Number of Journal Articles
None 1-4 5-10 114-
Men Woman Men Women Men Women
9,999or less 39.1 79.0 19.7 61.1 14.8 15.3
10,000-11,999 33.8 12.6 28.1 21.6 19.8 20.5
12,000-Nine-month 13,999 21.4 8.2 26.6 7.9 17.8 19.9Salary
14,000-166,999 4.2 .2 17.2 8.9 23.1 39.8
17,000-19,999 1.4 0 7.3 0 22.i 4.5
20,000+ 0 0 1.1 .5 2.4 0.
Weighted N 3767 2488 3243 1289 1048 278
Table 13
'Men Women
2.7 0
15.2 4.0
16.8 0
41.8 65.0
16.5 15.4
7.0 15.6
i 631 81
Number of Journal Articles Published by Education Professorsin Universities by Highest DegreeastiSex (Per Cent)
Highest Degree
Ph.D
Men Women
OtherDoctorate
Men Women
NA
NED
Men Women
Other
Men WomenNone 12.1 12.9 15.0 25.0 48.1 69.3 60.2 66.11-4 33.2 44.5 39.1 37.2 38.8 26.3 19.7 33.9
Number of 5-10 22.0 20.4 15.7 18.7 8.5 2.5 9.0 0JournalArticles 11+ 32.7 22.1 29.2 19.2 4.5 1.9 11.2 0
Weighted N 3567 552 3296 469 1306 825 106 53
Table 14
Number of Journal Articles Published by Education Professorsiiralleges by Highest Degree csidSex (Per Cent)
Highest Degree
Men
Ph.D
Women
OtherDoctorate
Men Women
NAMED
Men Women Men
Other
Women
None 25.0 23.6 30.1 44.8 66.1 70.6 48.5 100.0
1-4 41.8 47.0 44.8 34.5 25.5 27.0 48.4 0
Number of 5-10 18.9 20.6 15.3 14.6 7.2 2.5 3.2 0JournalArticles 11+ 14.3 8.8 9.9 6.0 1.1 0 0 0
Weighted N 1587 583 3564 753 2943 2573 196 176
Table 15
Number of Journal Articles Published by Professors of Educationwith the Ph.D. by Marital Status and Sex (Per Cent)
None
Men
Married
15.8
Single
21.9
Women
Married
9.5
Single
25.6
Number of 1-4 36.1 30.8 53.7 38.3Journal
Articles 5-10 20.3 33.9 21.1 20.4
11 or more 27.8 13.5 15.7 15.6
Weighted N 4876 278 623 483
Table 16
Number of Journal Articles Published by Professors of Educationwith the Ed.D. or Other Doctorate by Marital Status and Sex (Per Cent)
lien
Married Single
Women
Married Single
None 2''.8 24.1 46.3 24.3
1-4 41.1 62.0 23.8 52.0
Number of 5-10 16.4 2.5 18.4 13.2JournalArticles 11 or more 19.6 11.3 11.6 10.5
Weighted N 6489 351 724 491
Table 17
Number of Journal Articles Published by Professors of Educationwith the Ph.D. by Father's Occupation and Sex (Per Cent)
Man Women
ProfessionalWhiten Skilled,Collar Semi-Skill. Professional
Labor
WhiteCollar
Skilled,
Semi-SkilledLabor
None 9.6 17.9 15.5 28.9 14.7 14.3
1-4 31.9 36.4 36.2 40.5 53.6 31.4
Number of 5-10 36.9 18.7 18.3 16.9 12.7 47.3JournalArticles 11 or more 21.7 27.0 29.9 13.7 19.1 7.0
Weighted N 699 3034 1416 302 613 219
aSee notes for Table 1.
Table 18
Num.:ar of Journal Articles Published by Profes:;ors of Education withthe Ed-D. or Other Doctorate by Father's Occupation and Sex (Per Cent)
Men Women
ProfessionalSkilled,
Whiten Semi-Skilled Professional WhiteCollar Labor Collar
Skilled,Semi-Skilled
Labor
None 22.4 20.5 26.0 39.3 35.8 38.3
1-4 41.6 39.8 45.2 25.9 34.3 42./Number ofJournal 5-10 14.6 18.2 13.6 16.9 17.0 14.6Articles
11 or more 21.3 21.6 15.3 17.9 12.9 4.9
Weighted N 853 3352 2652 200 618 404
aSee notes for Table 1.
top related